XOrg Foundation Opens Membership and Elections

XOrg Foundation writes "To active developers and users of the X Window System:You are invited to join and help shape the direction of the new X.Org Foundation. Membership in the X.Org Foundation is now open and free.Applications for membership are sought from all contributors to the X and Desktop communities." Read more below for the rest of the information from the foundation.

The Interim Board of directors has established that examples of acceptable
contributions that will qualify you for membership in the Foundation include
coding, bug-fixing, testing, design, documentation, translation,
administration or maintenance of project-wide resources, speaking at
conferences, and supporting bugzilla or release management.

Should you wish to apply for free membership in the X.Org Foundation, then
please visit:

http://www.x.org/XOrg_Foundation_Membership.html

All Members are eligible for election to the Board of Directors and the
Architecture Group of the XOrg Foundation. The XOrg Foundation is now
seeking nominations for candidates for election to these groups.

Nominations for each election are open until 23.59 PDT on Friday 30th April
2004 for those Members of the X.Org Foundation who wish to stand for
election. You may nominate yourself for election. You may not nominate any
other member.

There will be 8 people elected to each of the Board of Directors and the
Architecture Group. In this first year of the X.Org Foundation, the four
candidates polling the most votes in each election will be granted a two
year term of office (until June 2006), and the next four candidates will
receive 1 year term of office (until June 2005). In subsequent years, four
seats of each group will be re-elected in the annual elections.

It is permissible for a candidate to stand for election for both the Board
of Directors and the Architecture Group.

The responsibilities of an elected person are detailed in the current
Bylaws of the X.Org Foundation, which can be found at:

http://www.x.org/XOrg_ByLaws_17Sep03.pdf

In addition, an elected person will be required to attend the annual
meeting of the X.Org Foundation, which will be held a location determined
in advance by the Board of Directors.

Should you wish to enter your candidacy for these elections, then please
prepare a personal statement of up to 200 words that can be provided to
prospective voters. This statement, and the statement of contribution to
the X.Org Foundation (which you completed when applying for membership)
will be made available to all voters to help them make their voting
decisions.

Once you have completed your personal statement, then you may visit:

http://www.x.org/member/XOrg_Foundation_Election_N omination.tpl

to enter your candidacy for the X.Org Foundation elections.

We look forward to your membership and candidacy submissions,

The Interim Board
X.Org Foundation."

Comments

I registered,

[nevek]

Nevek For Governor!!

Whats an xwindows system?

Re:I registered,

[Mister Coffee]

I registered too.

vote for Mister Coffee, Mister Coffee for president !!!

Re:I registered,

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool.. let's vote for a license change to attract some XFree86 guys!

great for pickup factor

[Anonymous Coward]

well helllloooo ladies, I'm a member of X.org...

Re:great for pickup factor

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife thinks it's something to do with Intarweb pr0n :-(

Re:great for pickup factor

[Anonymous Coward]

We are X.org. Resistance is futile.

What ever happened to simple OS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why must we have elections, and official positions? Just open source it, and let the community decide what's best for the project.

Re:What ever happened to simple OS?

[lurwas]

Elections and official positions are decided by the community itself. It's called a democratic process.
Hey, it even works sometimes ;)

Re:What ever happened to simple OS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracy is not efficient.

If Linux development has shown us anything, it is the fact that best rule for a community is a benevolent dictatorship.

Re:What ever happened to simple OS?

[JeffTL]

And the "benevolent" oligarchichal dictatorship over at Xfree recently screwed up their license.

Re:What ever happened to simple OS?

[BlackHawk-666]

I sure hope Bush gets elected to be X.Org president. Oh well, I guess he can always just rig the election if it's not going his way ;->

Re:What ever happened to simple OS?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Linux development has shown us anything, it is the fact that best rule for a community is a benevolent dictatorship.

As it turns out, the same applies to Iraq as well.

Re:What ever happened to simple OS?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the grandparent post refered to direct democracy, not representative democracy.

Re:What ever happened to simple OS?

[rizzo]

I sure hope Bush gets elected to be X.Org president.

That depends, does the person with the most votes actually win this election?

Re:What ever happened to simple OS?

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

That's just absurd. What possible interest would George Bush Junior, who is apparently not a particularly 'technical' person, have in such an organization?

X is just the foundation upon which people do Window Manager Development, not some sort of military tool, right?...

Re:What ever happened to simple OS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus is elected, that is, we choose to follow him, if anyone decides that doesn't want to follow him, forks. He can't force anyone to use his kernel, we decide to do so.

Re:What ever happened to simple OS?

[BlackHawk-666]

Here's a handy link for anyone else who has problems understanding humour.

sarcasm

X.org election sponsored by Diebold E-Voting

[norculf]

Seriously I hope they have a more reliable system than that.

Re:X.org election sponsored by Diebold E-Voting

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they do. They are using Majordomo. Everyone knows that there is no way to stuff the ballot box when you use an open mailing list.

Re:X.org election sponsored by Diebold E-Voting

[nacturation]

They are using Majordomo. Everyone knows that there is no way to stuff the ballot box when you use an open mailing list.

At least it beats Diebold's system which appears to run on Majordumbass.

Re:X.org election sponsored by Diebold E-Voting

[Anonymous Coward]

You snatched the karma-whoring right out from under me.

Re:X.org election sponsored by Diebold E-Voting

[kikta]

It'll be done via a Slashdot poll... ...meaning CowboyNeal will now be running X.org.

Why?

[mtenhagen]

Does anyone know why they are doing this?

Whas the organisation failing apart and they are desperate for new members?
Or are they financially healthy and want to grow bigger this way?

Re:Why?

[FooBarWidget]

Because more members and contributors means faster development of the X window system?

Come on, isn't this common sense?

Re:Why?

[vossman77]

My understanding is that Keith Packard (had guy right now) had griefs over the approx. lifetime membership in the xfree86 project. The xfree86 blocked new developers from coming on and kept old uninterested developers onteh staff. Keith wanted the whole system to be more open and that is why he forked. This is his method for the new system.

Re:Why?

[KingOfBLASH]

There were some articles about this on /.. Basically, the guy in charge of the XFree86 project decided to change the license terms from GPL to something which was very inconvinient for most distros. Up until this point, X.org was just a discussion group of "What should we do with XFree86"? Because XFree86 was now non free, they forked the project when it was last under the GPL, and now are looking for members to develop the newest incarnation of the X window system.

Re:Why?

[fooishbar]

Sure.

X.Org are doing some major things in regard to X: X11R6.7, as you have no doubt seen, and others are planned. In order to prevent a repeat of the 6.4 license debacle, which saw XFree86 become the de facto implementation, and the sad repeat of history, the decision was made to go with a foundation. The foundation model has been shown to work very well over at places like GNOME - a transparent, community-elected organisation with ultimate organisation, but hands-off in terms of day-to-day development.

It's all about being accountable to the community, not a closed cabal.

X.Org is not 'falling apart', nor would membership help its finances, if they were in dire need of money; it's free! :) d, X.Org member and confcall hanger-on

Re:Why?

[fooishbar]

The X.Org Foundation is not run by keithp; he is not even on the interim board. The reformation of X.Org is a process which has been going for quite some time now.

Sure, we're all interested in openness and transparency, which is why we're working so hard to see it all happen. But this isn't about a single person, or gripes about a single project; it's about achieving the end goal of X's world domination (and self-improvement) as best we can. :) d, X hanger-on

Haiku Breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you meant:

the line breaks used in
t' f'ing a'ticle were
a bit excessive

-theGreater Hack-u.

Re:Haiku Breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately
Yours is not a real haiku;
Yours is senryu.

To be a haiku,
natural imagery must
set the verse's scene.

Re:Haiku Breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean something like this?

Like storm-tossed forests,
cluttered and impsassable:
Those line breaks just suck.

Re:Haiku Breaks

[theGreater]

That is why I signed
My miserable attempt
theGreater HACK-u

As you can see I
Made no real attempt toward
Actual haiku.

Re:Haiku Breaks

[zhenlin]

While true, it still isn't really Haiku. High-grade Haiku is usually composed of two separate parts, with the final line linking together the two. For instance:

An old pond!
A frog jumps in-
the sound of water.

(This is a translation. Don't expect it to retain the original syllable count)

Deprecate Haiku for Limerick -- it has some good information about what a Haiku is supposed to be.

Re:Haiku Breaks

[Hard_Code]

Summer comes again
Trolls and dorks proliferate:
we must save haiku!

Joke Haiku is bad
Disrespectful and stupid:
just go kill yourself

You're missing the point
if you think that joke haiku is
not self-mocking

Banality is
used to mock austerity:
a glorious cause

You're right this is fun
I could go on forever:
you made a monster

This reminds me of a Nigerian scam email

[Slashdot Hivemind]

I think it's the personal addressing and the crap formatting. Are all the modalities assured in this risk free venture?

Re:This reminds me of a Nigerian scam email

[Ctrl-Z]

Crap formatting? It's text. You know, words arranged in a collection to form sentences, in turn arranged to form paragraphs? This sort of thing existed before the Internet.

Re:This reminds me of a Nigerian scam email

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop using lynx.

Get a real browser,
a real monitor and
a real graphics card
and join the 21st
century to see what
all the fuss is about.

Re:This reminds me of a Nigerian scam email

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean there was life before the internet?

Re:This reminds me of a Nigerian scam email

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, a slashdot post formatted for reading on my mobile phone!

Re:Great...

[thegrommit]

I always find it exciting to hear about groups of people electing each other and slapping each other on the back.

I guess the line breaks broke your concentration. You are only allowed to nominate yourself, and only if you're a contributor to X (as opposed to Y).

Forks

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't there quite a few forks of XFree86 at this point? Shouldn't we be worried about fragmentation? How can you develop for Linux if you now have to worry about the graphic subsystem as well?

(First Post?!?)

Re:Forks

[johannesg]

There is no need to worry. All implementations of X use the same protocol to communicate with their clients, thus they are all compatible with each other.

You _might_ want to worry about fragmentation in the driver space though, especially with all those binary-only drivers...

Re:Forks

[jimicus]

Not very easily. Particularly if you're a graphics card vendor (unless all the forks can collaborate to produce a standard driver ABI).

With any luck the same X server will be chosen as the default by most distributions, eliminating the problem in the mainstream.

Re:Forks

[FooBarWidget]

You don't have to worry about the graphics system. There are two forks of XFree86: Xouvert and XOrg. Both of them are 100% compatible with XFree86.

Re:Forks

[kundor]

the exact same nvidia and ati drivers work perfectly on both Xfree86 and X.org.

Please stop your fud.

Re:Forks

[fooishbar]

No, not really.

Xouvert is completely latent, and can be discarded from the discussion.

X.Org and freedesktop.org have a fork each: the difference lies in the build system and methodology. X.Org's current tree is monolithic (libs, apps, server, fonts, docs in one massive package; the traditional way), while freedesktop.org's is modular (everything in a separate package). Think KDE vs GNOME, respectively.

But X.Org and freedesktop.org are collaborating frequently and usefully, and we're working hard to ensure that the trees stay in sync (I've almost finished syncing xlibs, and am working on xserver now). There's a fairly big intersection of those working on both trees.

So, I'd say there are only two, and they're co-operating regularly and usefully. :)

I claim the position of XOrg Fuhrer

[Anonymous Coward]

The first thing I plan to do is to cleanse the codebase of all bad code. A good programmatic cleansing from time to time helps refresh the CVS tree of liberty.

More infighting?

[Seth Finklestein]

Great. That's just what we need: more infighting among the open-source elite.

I don't mean to go on a rant here, but look what we're up against. Many times, clients who would otherwise enjoy the flexibility of Linux are appalled by the infighting and bickering that takes place among projects. Consider the dozens of distributions, forks, and delays caused by a licence not being "free enough." My clients want to have good-quality software. In the real world, good-quality software comes with no strings attached.

In short, please work on developing good software. As long as it's free as in $0.00, I'll be happy.

Sincerely,
Seth Finklestein
Impatient Consultant

Re:More infighting?

[vidarh]

Because obviously there is no infighting and bickering between companies that develop proprietary software?

Dragging up these kinds of conflicts as a problem with open source projects is a lousy excuse at best.

In the real world, if clients are "appalled by the infighting and bickering" what it really means is that they are appalled because they got to see what would otherwise to a large extent happen behind closed doors protected by ridiculous membership fees for industry consortiums, or they somehow see it as "infighting and bickering" when it happens on a mailing-list and serious, worthwhile competition when it happens in the form of press releases from large companies.

If your clients can't handle that, they need to learn - openness means dirty laundry IS aired in public, and ultimately it's a strength that allow users to take organizational risk into account when choosing a software solution, something which is inherently hard to do with companies where all the nasty stuff happens behind the users backs.

Re:More infighting?

[gr8_phk]

"Consider the dozens of distributions, forks, and delays caused by a licence not being "free enough."

"In the real world, good-quality software comes with no strings attached."

Those 2 thing go together. "Free" as in freedom (as in GPL) gets you no-strings. The whole X fork happened because someone tried to add strings.

"In short, please work on developing good software. As long as it's free as in $0.00, I'll be happy."

This makes me want to call you all sort of nasty stuff. Why don't YOU go develop something I want and then give it to ME? I'll just sit here and bitch about your development process and complain if it isn't $0.00.

Or was your post supposed to be a joke and I missed it?

Re:More infighting?

[Seth Finklestein]

"Openness means dirty laundry IS aired in public." This is strictly a bad thing. We don't need to have CIOs potentially exposed to Richard M. Stallman and his self-aggrandizement. We don't want to have our critical customers exposed to the egos that rewrite dictionaries and spam mailing lists with idiotic rants about "anti-idiotarianism."

Frankly, I think the Open Source movement's greatest enemy is its own membership. When a professional software developer lets his ego get the best of him, he gets fired. When an open source developer starts ranting, he starts public embarrassing flame wars that only undermine investors' confidence in the viability of Linux tools.

Sincerely,
Seth Finklestein
Flaming For Peace

Re:More infighting?

[Anonymous Coward]

When people have a job to lose, they don't speak their minds. This reasoning process is shared among all people with similar things to lose. This leads to 'groupthink,' also known as 'yes men.' You don't buck trends, you don't speak out when things are broken because you don't want to rock the boat.

Groupthink is a serious problem in the corporate world. People will not put their asses on the line to question a bad decision (be it one of software licensing, business dealings or just plain common sense) and will think they are saving themselves by shutting up. In reality, the shit will eventually hit the fan over the bad decision and everyone will just say "I thought it was a bad idea all along" but at this point, noone has a job to protect because the business has gone under.

Flame wars help nothing, but to pretend that noone should have a voice is plain idiotic. Your flamebait was obviously successful in drawing my response, but you are no more correct because of it.

Like it or not, there are no barriers to Open Source use or advocacy. This is both good and bad for the movement. Deal with it. If RMS or ESR don't give you a warm-fuzzy feeling, tough love. The rest of us have the advantage of something called the 'middle ground.' Let others take up the extremes, they are welcome to them.

Re:More infighting?

[NineNine]

There's a reason why commercial software is like this: the customer doesn't need to know or care who does what, so long as the product is done. The fighting and arguing makes OSS look like a joke in many cases. Stuff done by committee is often the *worst* way to get some job accomplished. That's common knowledge. With commercial software, there's ultimately a boss who says "I've heard everyone's opinions. It's going to be done THIS way. I said so". And ultimately, the product gets finished, and the customer doesn't know about any arguing. Public rants and raves are juvenile, and in no way help a project. How does it help, exactly?

Re:More infighting?

[Seth Finklestein]

I find it deeply, deeply ironical that you have chosen the forum of Slashdot to decry the so-called "corporate" impact of groupthink.

Just think where we'd be without open source groupthink.

1. No more "(1998..2008) is the Year of Linux" articles.
2. People accepting Linux's flaws rather than saying "My grandma uses Linux; why can't you?"
3. People understanding the difference between user-run executables (the so-called "Windows security holes" people gripe about) and exploitable buffers (as found in dozens of Linux projects; patch 'em yourself).
4. An end to the endless, tiresome, embarrassing debates wherein a small faction tries to take on the groupthink and is shouted down. Does this sound familiar?

   User: Can we import from closed-source program X? My company uses program X, but we would switch if a convertor were available.
   Open source developer: STFU. We don't support closed-source anything. It's your own fault for locking yourself in. Write your own convertor and release it under the GPL.
   User: But I don't know how to extend your codebase. Your documentation is five versions out of date.
   Open source developer: STFU and STFW. *plonk*

Re:More infighting?

[johannesg]

The various hard-working developers have legimitate grievances that need to be addressed. That is why they are spending a considerable amount of time on this new project (which is really a duplicate effort, but required because the original project, at least in their eyes, has failed). Writing this down as "public embarrassing flame wars" is really a rather derogatory way to look at it, especially considering that these developers do not actually have control over the legions of fanboys here on /. who are happily spending their time flaming and doing nothing productive whatsoever.

In this context I'd like to point out that I love the way you write "flaming for peace" at the bottom of your posts...

Re:More infighting?

[molnarcs]

Do you often talk to yourself?

Re:More infighting?

[PyromanFO]

Don't know why I'm biting at this one, but oh well.

You obviously aren't paying attention. Most open source projects have one or a few people who control what happens. For instance the Linux Kernel has one man who says "It's going to be done THIS way" and that's Linux Torvalds. Alot of open source projects are similar. Therefore your entire argument is invalidated, to think you could have avoided posting if you knew what you were talking about.

Re:More infighting?

[k98sven]

Consider the dozens of distributions, forks, and delays caused by a licence not being "free enough."

To begin with, you're playing down the issue here. Many or even most linux distribution refuse to carry
XFree86 under the new license. Not because it's not 'free enough', but because they see it as difficult and/or impractical to be compliant with it.

I suppose your clients also want to have software which is well-known and well-supported? Well, then you should also be concerned about the consequences of XFree86s license switch.

Apart from downplaying the issue, you have to realize that this license issue is only the latest in many disputes over the management of XFree86.

Nobody likes fragmentation. But the XFree86 group has had this coming for a long time.

The end result is that one fork is rapidly going to take it's place as the #1 implementation of X11R6, and once that has happened, we will all be better off.

And apart from all that, I don't see any of this having much impact on users. The protocol is the same, no matter which implementation you run. The implementations are compatible. User-impact is small for everything except device-drivers.

Re:More infighting?

[DeathBunny]

Then perhaps freesoftware isn't for you?

Richard Stallman is a large part of why all of this great software exists for FREE and why we all have so much FREEDOM with regards to how we use and develop it.

No to mention of course that if your "CIO" friends aren't familiar with the conficts and "ego" involved with *any* product development (free software or proprietary), they must be highly sheltered indeed from the realities within their own organizations.

Perhaps you and your "clients" should go play elsewhere?

Re:More infighting?

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

In the real world, good-quality software comes with no strings attached.

No, this is not so. It is possible to get good-quality software with no strings attached, but there is nothing that prevents a group from offering good-quality software with reasonable strings attached (like for example Xfree86). Keep in mind also, that Linux (as all GPLd and LGPLd software) most definatly comes with strings attached.

Re:More infighting?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it deeply, deeply ironical that you have chosen the forum of Slashdot to decry the so-called "corporate" impact of groupthink.

Heh. Can't argue with that one.

No more "(1998..2008) is the Year of Linux" articles.

Yeah, those get old sometimes. I'd kind of like "Linux on the Desktop" so that I could get the applications I need and stop using Windows, but I don't think I'm willing to make the sacrifices to get there, so...

People accepting Linux's flaws rather than saying "My grandma uses Linux; why can't you?"

It seems honest debate is no longer a viable option in our society. If I admit flaws and my opponent does not, then it is percieved that I have flaws and he does not. People don't seem to go for "We're 10% better", then have to have, "We're great and they suck!". Once you get sucked into that argument strategy, it's hard to back out.

People understanding the difference between user-run executables (the so-called "Windows security holes" people gripe about) and exploitable buffers (as found in dozens of Linux projects; patch 'em yourself).

We understand them. Insecure programming is too common, and not unique to FOSS. We could certainly use to do more code auditing to minimize the problem, but to say that it's a problem with Linux and not with Windows is a fallacy, holes like buffer overruns have been found in just about everything by now. On the other hand, users running unknown code is far less of a problem on Linux, because it's not one click (or less) from email to processor. As with all usability issues, whether that's a good thing or not is up to you.

An end to the endless, tiresome, embarrassing debates wherein a small faction tries to take on the groupthink and is shouted down.

Yeah, it's really annoying and it's sapping my soul from my body. Thing is, I get it 40 hours a week at work, which is a manufacturer that has nothing to do with software. Change is not easy. You'd like to think that you're doing something for a good reason, so if someone tries to tell you to do different, a lot of people will interpret it as an attack against their reasoning ability or thier intelligence. Most of the time the original reason is sound, and the detractors deserve to be shot down. When the old model is obsolete, it takes a lot of skill to present a new idea to the old system in a way that they will accept it.

Again, this is not a FOSS problem. It's just more visible here.

Does this sound familiar?

Do you prefer marketroid speak for the same thing? "I'm sorry, we don't support that configuration. Thank you for calling SoftCo."

I've received some great support for free software, and some terrible. I've seen great documentation, and terrible. There are some very helpful, responsive people, and some assholes. YMMV. Commercial software is the same. Some companies, and some people at some companies, will solve your problems, some won't. Most do at least act professional when they talk to you, though.

Of course, unlike commercial software, you can always do it yourself. It's not a very viable option most of the time. Few people can program well enough to work on this stuff, and fewer still want to work on someone else's code just to use some stupid program. However, the option is always there, and can be used to solve any and all problems. Commercial software doesn't provide that option.

Re:More infighting?

[Arker]

Or was your post supposed to be a joke and I missed it?

Joke? Try troll. Look who wrote it.

Re:More infighting?

[ckaminski]

Please remember that free($$$) != free(liberty), and while free($$$) is great, free(liberty) is infinitely better.

Re:More infighting?

[Open $ource Advocate]

Those 2 thing go together. "Free" as in freedom (as in GPL) gets you no-strings.

Actually, the GPL is not no-strings. No strings would be public domain. GPL is more like 1 string -- if you release it, provide source. Depending on your philosophy and whether or not you agree with the GNU Manifesto, that's either a whisper-thin thread or a big thick rope that weighs you down.

Re:More infighting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like Michael Sims has started another round of modbombing. Please increase Seth's posts to +3, moderators.

Re:More infighting?

[jonadab]

> Actually, the GPL is not no-strings. No strings would be public domain.

Yes, this part is true.

> GPL is more like 1 string -- if you release it, provide source.

No, one string would be something like the (current) BSD license (the one
string being that you have to credit the original source; with public domain
stuff you don't even have to do that). The GPL has additional strings. More
than just providing source, you also have to license that source under the
GPL -- not just for the software itself but also anything that you link
against it. (This is particularly relevant for code libraries, as it
prevents them from being adopted by non-GPLed projects. If your goal is
to try to talk people into relicensing under the GPL this is a good dynamic,
assuming your library is of such quality that the ability to use it is
attractive enough to sway anyone's choice of license; if your goal is to
make a library that will be useful to as many projects as possible and maybe
become a de facto standard, then you want the BSD license instead, or
something like it. There is also the LGPL...)

> Depending on your philosophy and whether or not you agree with the GNU
> Manifesto, that's either a whisper-thin thread or a big thick rope that
> weighs you down.

Yeah, something like that. BSD stuff can be combined and linked with stuff
that's under various other licenses, including proprietary licenses; GPLed
stuff can't (well, not if you distribute it at all in any way). Depending
on whether you agree with RMS, this is either an Important Protection for
our Freedom or else it's a restriction that prevents you from using the
software in certain situations wherein it would otherwise be useful.

Re:More infighting?

[4of12]

We don't need to have CIOs potentially exposed to

Any CIO that can't take exposure to zealots isn't a qualified CIO.

Any large sized internal IT organization has its share of zealots already that have to be dealt with.

Further, these are the same CIO's that have to withstand the sales droid talks "We Have One System That Will Solve All Your Problems".

Good CIOs have a Teflon-coated asbestos suit and knows enough to ask their objective technically-educated staff to evaluate any details that they don't understand themselves because they don't have the time.

Re:More infighting?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>The whole X fork happened because someone tried to add strings.

Close, but not quite. It happened because someone refused to throw down a rope.

Re:More infighting?

[molnarcs]

Ok, my post sucked, I apologize. Bad day.

Re:More infighting?

[Rick the Red]

Yeah, so? Just because your CIO sucks doesn't mean you don't have to deal with him/her. Most of us don't get to pick the CIO, we just get to work with (for) them.

I once had to work with the idiot who became the CIO (after I left, thank God). Contrary to corporate security policy, he had his secretary (excuse me, Admin) log on to his email, print it out, and put it on his desk. He would read it and reply in longhand, and she would then log on to his email and type the replies -- sometimes the next day, sometimes that afternoon. Email turnaround with him took days, but he considered typing to be her job, not his. And they made him the CIO! Rumor was they picked Exchange over Notes for the entire corporation because that's what his secretary preferred. At least he asked one actual user :-)

Cool..

[sokkalf]

Do you get a fancy @x.org mailaddress?

Re:Great...

[Otter]

And how about they do a better job formatting the post? What was with all the line breaks?

I'm both relieved and alarmed to see that they don't have their $TERMINFO set correctly either. I wonder if their backspace keys work?

XF86.Org....

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting way to go tell XF86.Org to go pound sand.. First release their old licensed code, then demonstrate how much more open your board of directors is... I think I like it..

Re:XF86.Org....

[jd]

Same here. Now to figure out how to get in the door! :) Translating into Klingon or Elvish seems out of the question (dictionary isn't big enough) and they probably have enough people applying to bug-fix!

Re:XF86.Org....

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm...X.org's first release is pretty good considering it came out rather quickly after the fork. I think it's more or less a foundation for the new stuff that will be coming. They have updated a lot of the stale packages that were in XFree 4.4. You can't expect it to have 1000 new features in it. Their summer release is suppose to have composite, damage, xfixes etc. That in itself makes X.org worth having. I hope that the X.org board doesn't becoming like Xfree's though.

Re:XF86.Org....

[Anonymous Coward]

Woah there.

If you can translate it into Klingon or Elvish, respectably, you need a seat on the BOD ;)

Re:ph33r!!

[RLiegh]

naw, XFree86 is the destroyer of worlds, Xorg is the exiled bastard prince!!

I hope they solve

[UltimaGuy]

the myriad of problems users of GUI in Linux face. I mean, common, it surely pisses me if I have to edit a config file by hand if I install any nvidia driver. Also, I hate to do it again when I recompile a new kernel.
Also, I hope they provide a solid backdrop from where desktop linux can emerge.

Re:I hope they solve

[c4Ff3In3 4ddiC]

Well for one, you don't have to edit the config file if you are only rebuilding the nvidia kernel modules.

Second, there are scripts floating around that will automatically rebuild the nvidia kernel module for your current kernel if it fails to load. I have been using such a script in Gentoo for a few months now. Works fine and I never have to do anything after installing a new kernel.

Re:I hope they solve

[sremick]

Is it an nVidia problem, or a problem with your Linux distribution?

On FreeBSD:

cd /usr/ports/x11/nvidia-driver ; make clean install

Usually FreeBSD tends to be more "manual" than Linux, while Linux tends to be more pointy-and-clicky. I'm surprised they don't have the nVidia driver thing polished to be mindless. :(

Re:I hope they solve

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why you think an improved X will solve Linux's "Gui problems"?

" it surely pisses me if I have to edit a config file by hand if I install any nvidia driver. "

So blame Nvidia. Why doesn't their install routine do this? Come on now we are not talking about rocket science here. Parsing a text file and changing a few lines is something ANY first year CS student can figure out why can't Nvidia?

"Also, I hope they provide a solid backdrop from where desktop linux can emerge."

The Linux desktop isn't going anywhere until the big ISV's, Adobe, Intuit, etc all support it. More importantly Linux needs be a a tier one OS that's available preloaded on every Dell, HP, and IBM desktop sold. X isn't the reason Linux isn't there yet, lack of real support from the big commercial companies is. You want to see real marketshare for the Linux desktop? That's not gonna happen until the big boys decide on it.

People keep talking about how Linux needs to change at a fundemental level so that is worthy of building on for the desktop. In reality all we need is change at a fundemental level for Linux to well on the desktop. Technically there is no reason why Linux can't be used as a desktop by anyone. But realistically people won't seriously consider Linux until it A) comes preloaded on a siginificant amount of machines and B) can run all of the apps they are used to. I agree, improving X good thing. But let's not forget what's really holding Linux back.

Re:I hope they solve

[Anonymous Coward]

This is really up to the company/organisation which producs the distribution you are using.

X.Org provides a component the same way Linus et al are providing the kernel. Then it is up to the assembler of those components to make them work smoothly together.

Re:I hope they solve

[MartinG]

What would you like to see the X folks do about the nvidia driver problems?

Ideally, nvidia would release specs to their cards so support can be added into x.org and the kernel and then detection and setup can be integrated into the system install process.

Honestly, I don't see any other sensible way.

Why not take your concerns to Nvidia and see if they can help?

Re:I hope they solve

[jd]

Given you can have -any- resolution (and not just the fixed set Windows gives you), it's going to be tough not having a config file you need to edit. I suppose you could have a GUI tool which had slider bars and could continuously update the screen resolution, but it could be nasty on the monitor.

Re:I hope they solve

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, you could just have a "Test" button that tries the new config you've entered. Not hard.

Your one of those Open Source GUI designers, arn't you?

Re:I hope they solve

[ckaminski]

The problem is that most people are used to running quicken, microsoft works, internet explorer, and solitaire (among a myriad of other games).

Works and Explorer OSS has an answer for, Quicken is the iffy one.

Re:I hope they solve

[N1KO]

emerge nvidia-kernel works for me... you shouldn't need to edit any config files since you're just recompiling a bit of code to let nvidia work with the new kernel.

I do think X configuration should be more automatic by default. Having to magically know that my USB mouse uses the IMPS/2 protocol is kind of... impossible.

Re:I hope they solve

[shaitand]

First, you have to edit /etc/X11/XF86Config and change the driver from nv to nvidia as well as check and make sure the proper modules are loading to install the nvidia drivers as well as run their installer from the command line (which makes no sense to me, why on earth couldn't you do this from the gui and set a line in the script to load the module on next login.

This would let you simply ctrl+alt+backspace rather than init 3, kill the processes that didn't terminate properly, run the installer, init 5 to get back to the gui login and hope it loads properly.

Maybe there is some reason this wouldn't work?

Re:I hope they solve

[c4Ff3In3 4ddiC]

The OP stated he had to edit the XF86Config file everytime he upgrades the kernel. This is incorrect. You only have to edit it once.

Also, I don't find it difficult at all to install the nvidia drivers, certainly not much more difficult than installing them on Windows, you only have one or two additional steps. And the additional steps required aren't that hard.

Re:I hope they solve

[shaitand]

Well that's true enough, you do only have edit it on the first install.

Find the process pretty simple myself, although it could be easier it's still the best binary driver I've seen a vendor release (in terms of install).

ATI, Asus, Promise, etc all release drivers that MIGHT work with your kernel/distro/etc Nvidia's driver allows the portion that dependent on these to be recompiled and so works 95% of the time rather than the 20% those other drivers achieve.

That said, changing runlevels is not something your average user should have to do. Even a reboot would be easier for most imho. Annoying to some of us, but anyone can manage a reboot, hell a windows user wouldn't even notice it.

So long as those of us who don't want to reboot can still just restart x.

Re:I hope they solve

[Nutria]

So blame Nvidia. Why doesn't their install routine do this?

But it does, and it works perfectly....

GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will this remain GPL? The X.org website has a lot of talk about benefits of corporate membership, and says they will periodically release software to the general public free of charge. I though X.org was a GPL alternative to Xfree86 after the much discussed liscense change.

Re:GPL?

[Weird O'Puns]

Xorg isn't licensed GPL but with the old XFree license(v.1.0) that is GPL compatible. The big discussion was because the latest XFree license(v.1.1) holds a clause that makes it incompatible with GPL, which then might produce massive problems with anything linked to it. This isn't yet a problem as the XFree's xlib is still using the old license, but people fear it might be in the future.

Re:GPL?

[runderwo]

The big discussion was because the latest XFree license(v.1.1) holds a clause that makes it incompatible with GPL, which then might produce massive problems with anything linked to it.

It only produces "massive problems" in the FSF's interpretation of the GPL. I don't share their interpretation of dynamic linking as creating a derived work, and without that interpretation, there is no problem writing dynamically linked applications with the new license.

It's very similar to SCO's claim that writing your code against the UNIX ABI somehow causes it to be a derived work of SCO's code. At least the FSF doesn't try to claim ownership of such code, though.

There is no way around the fact that dynamic linking happens at runtime, on the user's system, and under the control of the user. There is no possible way that a distributor could be held responsible for what a user does with the software. The only thing that could be argued is intent on the behalf of the distributor, if he distributed the GPL binary with linker references to a proprietary library within the same archive or from the same web site. But even that is shaky.

IMO, the dynamic vs static linking distinction should be dropped from GPLv3. It is a source of much confusion and dubious gain, while seeming almost like a EULA clause cloaked in sheep's clothing in that it tries to control what happens on the end user's system. Make no claim whatsoever about dynamic linking, but disallow distribution of statically linked proprietary applications and reserve that for LGPL licensed apps.

Another thing GPLv3 could do is specifically enumerate categories of license clauses which are not part of GPLv3 itself, but are nevertheless considered not to be non-free. Thus when you link software under GPLv3 and another free license, you don't have the silly problems caused by GPLv2's "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." The GPLv2 is preventing software which is under perfectly reasonable free software licenses (even according to the FSF!) from being aggregated with GPL works, simply because they have added a term to their license which is not non-free in the least, but nevertheless "imposes a further restriction" and causes its license to be incompatible with the GPL.

Re:GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope it's released with a BSD license, or similar "do what you want just keep the copyrights" kind of license. Make it *truly* free, where anyone can do anything they want with it. Imagine if Microsoft released it for Windows and enabled compatibility between the Linux and Windows desktop? Sure, *that* would never happen but it'd sure be great.

Re:GPL?

[runderwo]

Yeah, I'm a troll. I went against the hive mind opinion on the GPL. Can I remain a Slashdot reader if I promise to repent?

Corp. Involvement?

[i.r.id10t]

Anyone know if NVidia or ATI is going to be involved with this? Sure would be nice to have stable drivers for 3d acceleration from the get-go...

Re:Corp. Involvement?

[sbennett]

The XFree86 drivers work perfectly with the current X.Org server. Since at the moment it's basically XFree86 4.4rc2, it's almost completely compatible with the xfree 4.3 drivers. So we have stable 3D accelerated drivers from the get-go. Whether they update the drivers if/when XOrg's driver interface changes is another matter.

Re:-1 Redundant and I don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks. that's pretty interesting.

KDE/Gnome controlled X.Org?

[tahtalim]

Great... Whoever has more developpers can easily control X.Org. Donno if this is good or bad, but at least it won't be company oriented after all.

Re:KDE/Gnome controlled X.Org?

[Hard_Code]

Considering the prior situation in XFree86 was that developers themselves had very little overall control - I think, you know, actually giving developers (including those that happen to work for companies) some say in the project they are working on might be a good thing, huh?

Re:KDE/Gnome controlled X.Org?

[fooishbar]

There are currently representatives from both GNOME and KDE (Jim Gettys from the GNOME Foundation, and I am a KDE developer) within X.Org right now.

I won't be running for the board, but other KDE folk are welcome to. Either way, it doesn't change the reality that we have been usefully engaging both communities (as well as those of other camps), and we will continue to engage pretty much anyone who's interested.

Legalease and Rules...

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't stuff like this what drove Xfree into oblivion? It always starts out meaning well, but the best laid plans of mice and men...

Re:Rant time!!

[negacao]

Is your cable modem upstream capped?

Every cable provider I've seen caps upstream to around 20k/sec.

I haven't seem them all, though; I switched to DSL as soon as I move, and haven't looked back. [no anti-server b/s, much less 'lag', etc] course, it's more expensive to get an equivilent downstream, but.. :)

Re:Rant time!!

[SmackCrackandPot]

In other words:

Gripe 1: A packet gets sent EVERY TIME THE CURSOR BLINKS!

Could it be possible to specify the cursor blink rate in X-windows?

Gripe 2: Why does the ENTIRE app need to redraw itself (using huge amounts of network bandwidth) every time I obscure it with a window or hop to another virtual desktop???

Could X-windows support display lists like OpenGL?

Re:-1 Redundant and I don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I usually follow the 2 year graph but it's today that the stock is expected to plummet after's Baystar's recent announcement.

I nominate

[KingKire64]

Bill Gates, after all look at all the wonderful stuff he hs done for windows. its so perty.

Re:I nominate

[Anonymous Coward]

Who wants a body massage?

Re:Rant time!!

[FooBarWidget]

Look, if you want them to listen to you, then calm down and don't use CAPITALS or "????!!!!" all over the place. It makes you look like a zealot with emotional problems.

Anyway... a large part of the slowness over the network are caused by the toolkit and the apps, not by the protocol itself! QT and GTK do not use the X protocol efficiently.
Until the toolkits and apps are fixed, use NX compression. I heard it does wonders and makes Mozilla usable even over a modem.

Would that make you on of the X men?

[Chuck Chunder]

And do you get a funky rubber suit and a cool name?
"Anonymo" or something?

Re:Would that make you on of the X men?

[Anonymous Coward]

well if i had a rubber suit id be late.x man

Re:Would that make you on of the X men?

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Yes, the suit looks something like that one the Tron guy had on in the story yesterday.... Great for the picking of the chicks....

Only Nvidia can solve that,

[anti-NAT]

by openning up their hardware programming specifications.

I have none of the problems you mention, and that is because my video card has open programming specifications.

Re:Only Nvidia can solve that,

[yarbo]

which card do you use? I'd like to support that company

Re:Only Nvidia can solve that,

[anti-NAT]

I'm using a Matrox G550. I know, not the latest greatest 3D card, then again, I don't play games, and don't care to compete with the FPS figures of other people. Of course, there are uses for 3D graphics other than games.

If you want get a video card that has open source drivers, have a look at the list of video cards supported by the XFree86/Xwin project, and the DRI project.

Last time I looked, the ATI 9200 series of cards where the latest supported with fully open DRI drivers. Again, not the latest and greatest, still they are still available new, so they a probably adequate.

We are in a bit of a dark period at the moment with drivers. People want fast, yet the vendors aren't releasing programming specs for them. Their "Linux support" is really just lip service.

Re:Rant time!!

[noselasd]

>2: Why does the ENTIRE app need to redraw itself (using huge amounts of
>network bandwidth) every time I obscure it with a window or hop to
>another virtual desktop??? The damned thing is already wasting traffic
>updating when I'm not even lookin g at it, why does it need to redraw
>AGAIN when I view the window again???? Now onto my final gripe for
>right now.
Toolkit problem. Don't blame that on X.

>Gripe 3: If X is such a truly network independent application why the
>hell can't I simply redirect the output of an already running process
>to any X-term???
Cause ther's a lot of state residing on the X server about every
application/Xwindow. And there is no current way of transferring
that state to another X server.

Re:Rant time!!

[BlueWonder]

When are we going to see some real improvements to the X protocol?? [...] Gripe 1: A packet gets sent EVERY TIME THE CURSOR BLINKS!!! Why the fsck is that needed?? Even when I am on a separate virtual desktop and not viewing the app the traffic is STILL SENT!!

The latter is a problem with the app, not with the X protocol. The X protocol allows it to notify an app when its windows are mapped or unmapped, so the app needn't attempt to make the cursor blink in an unmapped window.

Gripe 2: Why does the ENTIRE app need to redraw itself (using huge amounts of network bandwidth) every time I obscure it with a window or hop to another virtual desktop???

That's a problem with the capabilities and/or configuration of the X server, but not with the X protocol. The protocol allows backing store and save under.

Re:What the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the reason is something called "X Windows".

Re:Rant time!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you show be fair about it. QT uses X a lot more efficiently thank GTK does. It common knowledge than KDE runs a lot better remotely than Gnome does.

Re:-1 Redundant and I don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

What announcement is that? I have SCO turned off in my preferences; I couldn't keep up with the barrage of shit..

GET SOME PRIORITIES!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this a front-page story and this : "Bubble Fusion Results Replicated by 4 Institutions" isn't?!!! WTF?!!!

They are called...

[GirTheRobot]

"standards"

Re:Rant time!!

[Spellbinder]

it's funny
here in switzerland it is the other way around
more bandwith with cable, no disconnection after 20h, not even a change of the IP for many month(as long your PC is online), better pings
2mbit/512kbit for around 50$

This is informative?

[Svartalf]

Uh, XFree86 has never been GPLed or LGPLed. It's under an MIT/X11 license variant since it's inception- I know, I had to license code modifications to the Utah-GLX source base under that license. What transpired was that the guy in charge of the XFree86 project changed the license to more of a BSD-ish license that requires advertising, etc. This made the newly licensed version incompatible on a licensing level with any GPLed OS- you can use it, you just can't distribute the new version of XFree86 with a Linux distribution without the prospects of possible legal hassles, etc.

Re:This is informative?

[Arker]

What transpired was that the guy in charge of the XFree86 project changed the license to more of a BSD-ish license that requires advertising, etc.

Yes, they recently changed to something resembling the old BSD license, including an advertising clause, which makes it not compatible with the GPL. That's the licensing tiff. However this came after the original split between the groups, where some people walked away from the Xfree86 project because of other issues - problems getting changes commited, folks that hadn't developed in years still having developer status while folks that were major current contributors couldn't get it, and had to go through a huge rigamarole to get bug fixes posted and the like. So it was really the combination of the two different issues that brought the current situation about - the first group that split were fortuitously positioned to pick things up when the license change drove the second group to leave and the Linux Distro-makers decided they didn't want anything to do with the new Xfree86.

This made the newly licensed version incompatible on a licensing level with any GPLed OS- you can use it, you just can't distribute the new version of XFree86 with a Linux distribution without the prospects of possible legal hassles, etc.

This isn't actually true. You can distribute non-free software on the same disk with free, that's not the problem at all.

The problem is that you can't link the code. If your GPL program needs to link against some of the new Xfree code, then you have a legal problem because of the licenses being incompatible. In most cases that's probably not necessary, but in the cases where it is it's a huge problem, and while shipping the new Xfree86 in a distro would not necessarily be a legal problem (particularly since the new license affects only the new code,) it would still be opening the door to huge problems later on, and that's why no one wants to touch the thing. Hopefully the fact that this license change has just dropped Xfree86 from being the defacto standard X11 implementation to being a historical footnote overnight will act as a warning to anyone else that might be considering the same course of action.

The Xfree86 project still seems to be in denial about this, btw, as a quick browse of their website will show, but the fact remains - no one is using their new version, no one will touch it with a ten foot pole, and their developers are hemmoraging like crazy.

Re:This is informative?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Xfree86 project still seems to be in denial about this, btw, as a quick browse of their website will show, but the fact remains - no one is using their new version, no one will touch it with a ten foot pole, and their developers are hemmoraging like crazy.

Actually, slackware is continuing to use it. But I understand what you were really trying to say, and I agree: No-one who matters is continuing to use it.

Re:This is informative?

[Eravnrekaree]

Actually, from what I read, the only part of the XFree86 system that has been placed under the new licence are the server side components. Xlib and client side libraries, that you would actually link into your software application, are not and will not be placed under the new licence. These are the libraries that are included in your programs. The server side code that is under the new licence is not compiled into your programs, so there is no licencing conflict with GPL. Again, just the fact the GPL code is being shipped on the same CD with non-GPL code does not create a conflict, the code actually has to be linked into the same program with an incompatable licence for their to be a problem.

Also, from what I understand, the clause requires credit in places where other software credits are given, such as in documentation. It is not an advertising clause from what I understand, you do not have to plaster the credits whereever you refer to X, only in the documentation.

So there actually does not seem to be a conflict with GPL licencing in apps at all, so I dont understand why people are so concerned over the licence change. Its still an open source licence which you can freely use, modify, and redistribute.

For more information on the licence change, I really do recommend reading this page on XFree86s website:
http://xfree86.org/legal/licenses.html

There are potential issues as a result of this fork. A concern is that the driver API could become incompatable, between XFree86 and Xorg, so two sets of drivers would have to be maintained. Hopefully this can be avoided and a standard driver API/ABI maintained.

Re:This is informative?

[Arker]

So there actually does not seem to be a conflict with GPL licencing in apps at all, so I dont understand why people are so concerned over the licence change. Its still an open source licence which you can freely use, modify, and redistribute.

There definately is a conflict with the GPL. You cannot add any conditions to the license, the GPL prevents that. So a license which imposes conditions above and beyond what the GPL requires are GPL incompatible - you cannot legally combine code under the GPL with code under this license. It's true that it's a relatively innocuous condition, and not a big deal in and of itself, but you still can't combine code with it under the GPL legally, and that's what the concern is.

Since they've stated they don't intend to place library code under this license (I think, although I can't seem to find a link to back that up) it doesn't seem like a huge deal, but considering all the problems with the XFree86 organisation lately, and the fact that there's a perfectly good GPL-compatible fork (which probably has more active developers already) there's just no reason not to avoid the potential problems of having a major part of your distribution GPL-incompatible unecessarily.

Re:This is informative?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true AT ALL. You certainly could distribute it with a Linux OS or distribution. What you couldn't do was *LINK* GPL source with it. This caused a problem for some *applications* not the Linux kernel. Since it is the Apps might link with the libraries.

Re:Rant time!!

[Hornsby]

Gripe 3: If X is such a truly network independent application why the hell can't I simply redirect the output of an already running process to any X-term?

You can easily do this if you use screen. I do it all the time.

http://www.guckes.net/screen/

Use it like this:

user@host:~$ screen -S longcompile
user@host:~$ make


Now press ctrl-a then d to detach.

Close all your terms and go home.
Now ssh back into the machine and type screen -R longcompile to reconnect to your compile session. You can detach and reattach as often as you like. It also has a lot more features, but I'll let you RTM for those.

Why would they?

[Jason Hood]

They sell graphics cards. They dont care if linux/X or MS succeeds. It makes no difference for them. They would probably prefer one OS existed so that they only have to write drivers for one platform.

I bet they just wait it out and continue to support xfree86. There is no reason for them to act. In that respect, this is a setback to linux/X. Uncertainty has not been a good environment for technology investments since the dotcom bust. How many people buy their high end cards for windows as opposed to Mac or Linux? My guess is 90%-5%-5%.

Re:Why would they?

[kundor]

Xfree86 and X.org are compatible. The current nvidia and ati drivers work fine on both. There is no need for them to change anything.

Re:Why would they?

[tiger99]

I don't know about ATI, but the Nvidia driver seems to contain a large block which is common to Windoze, Linux (and maybe BSD?), and another part which is GPLed and is the kernel interface, produced as a normal loadable module. Frankly, I don't care what happens inside the proprietary bit, if they want to keep it that way, that is their right, although it may be silly. If it helps them to quickly write one driver which works with any OS, that is good.

It would not actually help a competitor if they did reveal their driver code, after all, anyone who can design a huge ASIC is going to ba able to reverse engineer both the code and the silicon, if they want to, and it would be far better to publish the full spec, with as many copyrights and/or patents as they feel necessary. But, some managements (Canon come to mind, for a start) take a very immature view of the negative implications of full disclosure, imagining it to be a therat to their business. It is simply not so, if they get the FOSS community on board, they get, at no cost to themselves, an extra resource for debugging, amongst other things, and they maximise their market penetration, regardless of which way the OS wars go. It does matter, in some parts of the world, Linux is all but universal, or heading that way, and surely the major manufacturers want to sell their products in China, Brazil, India,..... But, I guess that openness is something that some people simply can't understand.

Meanwhile, I am quite happy to use Nvidia cards. What is actually a nuisance is that certain Linux suppliers (SuSE comes to mind, I think there are others) do not supply the Nvidia driver, allegedly for legal reasons, while the Nvidia web site says that you can distribute it, or even repackage it or change the installer. That makes it a right pain to install, also the details about how you do it, to get Yast to recognise the new driver and be able to configure it, are buried deeply on the SuSE web site, and can not be found by a logical search through the support pages.

I think there is a lot of stupidity here, people need to talk to each other and sort this sort of thing out, then, binary or not, the Nvidia driver would be easily useable, and acceptable to most people. When it is installed, it tends to work rather well, certainly on my laptop (Gforce 2 Go) and the 2 desktops which have Nvidia cards, one with Twinview or Xinerama, or whatever they call it. (I can run it both ways, both screens identical, or giving a single wide screen, haven't needed the two fully independent screens yet).

As to the capabilities of Xfree86, my oldest machine is a K6/II-500 with an ATI Rage Fury card which was an absolute pig to configure and get working under Windoze 95/98/ME/XP, but it now runs Xandros, which despite certain deficiencies which I hope they fix soon, installed the X server with zero fuss and bother, and it works. But, I think X as we know it is getting old, and it is time for a complete re-think. This should happen with software, every so often you should throw away the old one and start again, it does not say that the old was bad, only that technology has advanced, so different methods might now be practicable. It is worth re-examining from first principles what we actually need a graphics card to do nowadays, and how work can be shared between the card and the CPU(s). Failed efforts like the Tablet PC might give rise to new ideas, these presumably have a CPU on the mobile bit, which could perhaps be reprogrammed as a full X server or equivalent, given a nice tidy protocol to work with, not messy Windoze GDI calls.

It is quite amazing what programmable logic can do nowadays, building a software and hardware prototype of a new graphical subsystem as an open-source project is not out of the question, although some of the fancy features, textures and bump mapping, for instance, might need to be left out at first. But, it would be nice to see a new, open architecture evolve, and the time may be right for this to happen.

Re:Why would they?

[Jason Hood]

They are for now but there is no garuntee that they will be compatible in the future.

I am sure nvidia and ati have no plans to stop development on their current X drivers but this could hold up future projects on Linux.

Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Don;t listen/read about it.

You *cannot* listen to 90+% of the infighting in CSS companies, though it still happens. Not knowing doesn't harm you, so why bother letting yourself know OSS companies are arguing?

Re:Rant time!!

[jd]

These are toolkit problems. The protocol looks fine, from these perspectives.

Personally, I think there is a case for allowing vector graphics in X - it would make fonts easier to define, for example. Low-level voxel support would be nice, too, for when people play with 3D.

There's also a case for modifying the X font server to support metafonts.

The sample implementation needs a few speedups, too - it's OK but could include accelerated cases. I've also had lots of problems running binaries compiled from their sources. Too many quirks.

Aside from these minor irritants, X as it stands is a very good system.

Re:Rant time!!

[Bert64]

You can also use Xmove for graphical apps

Speaking of denial

[Arker]

Sorry, I know it's screwey to reply to yourself, but looking over their website some more they look to be even deeper in denial than I thought over this, and I don't see any better place to post this than here.

The Xfree86 homepage proudly trumpts the following:

4.4.0 now Stable After tremendous testing and community feedback, the 4.4.0 Release is now available for twenty (yep that's the number 20!) popular platforms. Distros that have integrated it are: NetBSD, Slackware Linux, Conectiva, and many others. See our distro support page for the full breakout.

But checking up on it, that doesn't seem to be true.

NetBSD?

XFree86 upgraded to version 4.3.0 for those architectures which use XFree86 version 4.

SlackWare?

- XFree86 4.3.0

My Portugeuse is a bit rusty and I gave up trying to find what version Connectiva is shipping, but I found it astonishing that they would claim NetBSD and Slack are using 4.4 when they aren't. Is anyone shipping Xfree86 4.4?

Re:Speaking of denial

[Ded Bob]

For NetBSD: HEADS UP: XFree86 4.4.0 imported

In regards to linking, I believe the new license is only on non-library code. This from the license FAQ on their site:

"To avoid issues with application programs such as KDE and GNOME and other X-based applications, that are licensed under the GPL, the 1.1 licence is not being applied to client side libraries."

Re:Speaking of denial

[Arker]

For NetBSD: HEADS UP: XFree86 4.4.0 imported

Hmm, so like slack, it's available in a development branch only. Hardly what I would have expected from the words "Distros that have integrated it."

In regards to linking, I believe the new license is only on non-library code.

Quite true (although if I'm not mistaken that's the case only because when confronted on the issue they tried to back down off the original plan to avoid trouble?) and the license change isn't that huge a deal for that reason IMOP. At the moment, it covers a miniscule amount of code in fact, but of course that amount of code will grow over time, if Xfree86 keeps putting out code at least. More than anything else it seems that the whole flap over this issue has been sort of a 'last straw' that's pushed the alternative projects to critical mass and discouraged distro makers from using Xfree86.

Re:Speaking of denial

[Crazy Eight]

More than anything else it seems that the whole flap over this issue has been sort of a 'last straw' that's pushed the alternative projects to critical mass and discouraged distro makers from using Xfree86.

Exactly.

There are a few more political flashpoints that are bound to be crossed too. I would be surprised to find that XFree86 will continue to play much of a role in FOSS X11 software. X.org's tree is in Fedora core test 2. I read hints from a poster here on /. (for what it's worth) that Debian is already thinking about what to change in packaging/namespace if and when they switch to fdo's autotool'd X. If the fat lady isn't already singing, she will once nVidia releases a driver that acknowledges anything X.org specific.

Re:Speaking of denial

[Ded Bob]

Hmm, so like slack, it's available in a development branch only. Hardly what I would have expected from the words "Distros that have integrated it."

That is what I call integration. By default, future NetBSD has v4.4. The BSD's do not like to pull big switches in software just before a release regardless of license issues.

I wonder if you can link to the new code dynamically just like I can link to LGPL dynamically without changing whatever license I choose.

Re:Speaking of denial

[Arker]

I wonder if you can link to the new code dynamically just like I can link to LGPL dynamically without changing whatever license I choose.

That's one of those areas of copyright law that there are different opinions on, but IIRC the opinion of the FSF counsel is a qualified no. The qualification being that if the code you're linking is sufficiently generalised that there are other libraries it could link to just as well then there's no question of 'derivative works' and so that would be ok (like it's ok to dynamically link your GPL code to a proprietary C library as long as the same code will work fine linked to Glibc instead) - but if your code is specific to the X code, so it can't function without it, then the licenses have to be compatible.

That wouldn't come up anyway, unless the XFree guys start applying the new license to the library code which it currently does not apply to. I don't think there's a short term practical problem here in terms of anything folks are doing at the moment being illegal because of the new license. But at the very least, it's a pain in the ass because now everyone has to run around involving the lawyers just to be sure of that fact where there was no question before.

Re:-1 Redundant and I don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

sucka

Re:FARCE

[daemonc]

I'm not sure where you got your information, but I would say that the Gnome Foundation and Board of Directors have been an overwhelming success.

The Foundation has been instrumental in the last two releases, which were on schedule and of very high quality.

The same people are certainly not elected to the board every year. Case and point, the founder of Gnome himself, Mr. Miguel de Icaza was lost his seat on the Board this year because his application was late.

Slackware

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

The "slackware-current" version of Slackware right now has the 4.4.0 version in the official "X" section, but recently the X.org version was made available (in the 'testing' section) as an alternative. I suspect that X.org may supplant the XFree86 4.4.0 version before the next 'official' slackware release.

Not that I've noticed - I've been compiling X out of the DRI cvs tree to get DRI for my laptop's ProSavage/DDR video - I'm honestly not sure whether they're working from X.org or XFree86.org or what, but the video driver still shows "4.3.99.12" as the version number as of yesterday's build...

Re:Slackware

[Arker]

The "slackware-current" version of Slackware right now has the 4.4.0 version in the official "X" section, but recently the X.org version was made available (in the 'testing' section) as an alternative. I suspect that X.org may supplant the XFree86 4.4.0 version before the next 'official' slackware release.

Heh, ok, but from what they said on the website you'd expect it was in the latest release (9.1,) not the unstable testing tree. As long as it stays there and doesn't make it into an official release the license difference is probably moot, since slack-current is certainly not advertised. Anyway good catch spotting it.

Re:Slackware

[Crazy Eight]

4.3.99.902 was the last GPL compatible snapshot. They've got some headroom to work with when it comes to syncing.

Re:Rant time!!

[jonadab]

> You can easily do this if you use screen.

screen rocks, but it only works for console and command-line apps. I want to
be able to do the same thing with X11 apps. And if I have to restart the X
server for some reason, or change the desktop resolution (no, I don't mean
zoom like with Ctrl-alt-+, I mean actually change the dimensions of the actual
desktop), I don't want to have to close all of my apps.

gdmflexiserver is useful here, but it doesn't solve the fundamental limitations
of the current generation of X servers. More work is needed.

Re:MY PUSSY SHOUTS BACK: FORESKIN COCKS NOT ALLOWE

[Anonymous Coward]

circumsized caock should only intermingle with circumsized pussies to let darwin do it's thing.
Yes with circusized pussy i mean one where the labia and the clitoris are removed.

Xmove would be great except...

[bani]

...that it doesnt work.

It crashes on even the most simplistic applications like xterm.

I guess part of the reason it's uselessly unstable is that it hasn't been updated since 1997 . It speaks an ancient dialect of X11 and barfs on anything more recent.

HUGE DICK factor

[Anonymous Coward]

I just whip out my dick, usually. That seems to work. Maybe because its HUGE!

Re:Rant time!!

[Hornsby]

You can use xrandr to change your resolution on the fly without having to close any applications. For remote access without closing applications, something like VNC might be of help, but I know that's not exactly what you're looking for. I don't know of any way to detach a GUI app running locally and reattach to a remote host on any OS, but I'm sure it's possible.

BUT BUT!!!!

[ShadowRage]

isnt opensource communism?
I say we kill the opposition and take control my comrades!

Re:Rant time!!

[Anonymous Coward]

ditch x, start help developing y-windows --> http://www.y-windows.org

Re:Rant time!!

[Kourino]

Why does the ENTIRE app need to redraw itself (using huge amounts of network bandwidth) every time I obscure it with a window or hop to another virtual desktop???

It doesn't. X11 has perfectly reasonable ways to specify right now that only a certain region was obscured by another window. That doesn't mean it isn't easier for application developers to interpret Expose events to mean "oh, better redraw everything". If this is really the case, don't blame X, blame the toolkit developers, it's their fault. There is no protocol that will save you from inefficient use of it.

... why the hell can't I simply redirect the output of an already running process to any X-term??? If I have a process running on my PC at school, I should be able to simply redirect the X output over my forwarded SSH port and the running application should smoothly appear on the remote X server.

I've thought about this a bit recently, and it's harder than you think. You have to transfer a lot of data that are represented in implementation-specific fashion (like pending events, graphics areas, etc.) between two servers, so first you need protocol for that. You could probably do that with an X extension. Then, you need to have a way to tell applications "hey, you're no longer connected to server A, go talk to server B instead" ... the application needs to respond to that right away, since further references to its stuff in server A will generate BadWindow (or similar) errors. So either every app has to change to listen for a new ChangeServer event, or you have to implement this in Xlib and get everyone who wants to use it to upgrade on all the machines they may want to use.

Another solution is to use something like xmove, which basically connects applications to a "virtual" server which just forwards events to whatever the appropriate real server you want to use is.

The whole point of X wasn't to allow something like that. That's actually fairly complicated compared to plain old network transparency, which just means that I can run an application on any machine on the network and have it display on my workstation.

I always hear this

[bonch]

I can't count how many times I've heard how the toolkits don't use X efficiently.

Well, when the hell is it going to get fixed? I've been hearing this problem for years.

Y-Windows seems to fix all the problems with X anyway. I can't wait for 1.0.

Re:I always hear this

[FooBarWidget]

Y-Windows doesn't magically solve all the problems. Do you think Y will magically erase GTK and QT out of existence and automagically port exiting GTK and QT apps? I don't think so! Y's server-side toolkit will do no good if developers don't use it.

And frankly, all the Slashdot crowd does is pissing off developers. One even said developers should be slaves, and got modded up to +5! It's exactly because of this kind of attitude why Slashdot is preventing Linux from succeeding on the desktop: the belittleling of developers.

Re:I always hear this

[Anonymous Coward]

Y-windows, which is almost dead, btw, introduces yet another toolkit. Even worse, it makes any application which uses this unportable because the widgets exist on the server-side. Your application must use expensive RPC calls to the server-side and only after that, the widget hierarchy can draw itself.

The whole idea of server-side widgets is nonsense, forget about it.

Moderators

[Anonymous Coward]

Please read the moderation guidelines before moderating. I don't know exactly where it says it, but it is evident from past practice that posts containing Simpsons references are supposed to be +5, regardless of relevance to the discussion.

Re:Rant time!!

[Burpmaster]

Gripe 2: Why does the ENTIRE app need to redraw itself (using huge amounts of network bandwidth) every time I obscure it with a window or hop to another virtual desktop???

You want a backing store for the windows. Try using the +bs option to the X server, as in

startx -- +bs

Re:Rant time!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Use VNC then.

Re:Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

rush lyrics make anonymous coward cry.
just say no.

Re:Rant time!!

[Anonymous Coward]

KDE runs like a dying camel in the desert remotely, and locally too.

Re:Rant time!!

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, it is called XWindow, not X-windows!

Second, you cannot specifiy a cursor blink rate because there is no such thing as a cursor in X11 -- the mouse cursor doesn't count, and no, it can't blink either. XWindow handles only graphics primitives, not your desktop environment.

Third, yes, XWindow supports OpenGL.